Sony BMG to Offer DRM-Free Music on Apple's iTunes?

[Virgil-TB2]

... 9to5Mac believes that Sony BMG will soon begin offering their music catalog to Apple in the iTunes Plus format. iTunes Plus is Apple's marketing term for higher quality (256kbit) audio tracks without any copy protection (DRM). Apple first started selling iTunes Plus tracks from EMI in May, 2007. ...

I wouldn't hold your breath on this, or indeed start celebrating, even if it turns out to be true.

Over a year after the "victory" with EMI, thousands of EMI tracks are still not offered in iTunes Plus format with no indication if they will ever be.

These announcements are all so Jobs can look good on stage and the partners can be happy that agreements are in place. In terms of the customers and in terms of actually converting the music to iTunes Plus, they have and will continue to fail horribly.

Even if the Macworld January announcement is or all the other companies as well and all music is now DRM free, it would still take Apple the better part of three or four years to convert the tracks at the rate they have been going.

 

[shigzeo]

iTunes +

i only buy from iTunes + because of the drm-less files are very important to me. nice to see that bmg will sell as well. finally

 

[skellener]

man, the big 4 are so stupid ... this should have happened a long time ago.

Like when Napster had just come out.

 

[skellener]

I m not sure I understand, do these labels have a special agreement with Amazon? Why can Amazon sell DRM free music but Apple cannot?

Yes, Amazon has an agreement to sell DRM free music. Many places do now. The labels don't want Apple to have power over them, so they have kept them to a DRM agreement. This Sony deal might go a long way to getting the rest of them to allow Apple to go DRM free completely.

Now if Amazon would only DRM free that Audible content for everyone!

 

[skellener]

Now that we have HD video in Itunes I really want LOSSLESS audio too!!!
Comon Apple!

Just buy a CD if it matters that much.

 

[bobbleheadbob]

I've switched to buying most of my music from Amazon now. I only get it at iTunes now if it's not available on Amazon. Better quality and no DRM -- it's a no-brainer as it stands no. Apple has to change something if they want to compete.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

I've switched to buying most of my music from Amazon now. I only get it at iTunes now if it's not available on Amazon. Better quality and no DRM -- it's a no-brainer as it stands no. Apple has to change something if they want to compete.

I was under the impression that Apple doesn't care about selling music so much as they care about selling iPods. Since people want an easy way to quickly buy cheap music and get it on their iPod, Apple offers the iTunes store. It just happened to become more or less a monopoly because no one else offered as quick and slick a service as Apple's. I wouldn't be too shocked if Apple let the others take the mp3 marketshare (as long as they're still able to sell millions of iPods/iPhones that is.)

Oh... and with the App Store... Apple does have a way to keep raking in money. I know I want Void Masters getting sold though it (because any other way would instantly limit the possible marketshare to people who have jailbroken their iphones.)

 

[ant-macyourself]

I'm curious to find out what the growth trends are for Amazon since they started selling 99 cent DRM-free tracks. The labels surely thought they would eat away a good chunk of market share from iTunes, but they were clearly wrong (as usual). It continues to amaze me that the major labels complain about iTunes when Apple is responsible for making legal digital downloads so mainstream. Why try to push out your biggest supplier? To rip off customers, that's why.

 

[KingYaba]

Just buy a CD if it matters that much.

Or better yet an LP.

 

[milani]

Well not necessarily (well yes, they are stupid but not in this case) because if they just give into iTunes with DRM-free material they would (as the post said) just be giving more power to the iTunes store and lose even more power in any negotiations

As far as I'm concerned that's a good thing. The record company monopoly has got to go. Under their regime, the only ones who really suffer are the artists (and consumers) because the greedy labels try to take as much as they can. It's ridiculous quite frankly. And then of course there is the fact that the labels are completely idiotic in reacting to the digital age, but that's another rant for another day. Suffice it to say any loss in profits (on the part of the label) is well deserved.

I'm curious to find out what the growth trends are for Amazon since they started selling 99 cent DRM-free tracks. The labels surely thought they would eat away a good chunk of market share from iTunes, but they were clearly wrong (as usual). It continues to amaze me that the major labels complain about iTunes when Apple is responsible for making legal digital downloads so mainstream. Why try to push out your biggest supplier? To rip off customers, that's why.

100% agree. It's funny how the record labels actually complain that Apple takes too big of a share... yet from what I understand Apple merely breaks even. So it's 100% the fact that they pair their iPod with iTunes that allows them to keep it working - yet the typically stupid, greedy labels want more. Can you tell how I feel about record companies?

 

[ChrisA]

Lossless is also a must for me. I do not mind price, but need lossless.

Absolutly. I'm going to continue to rip from CD. 256 AAC is good, better then 256 MP3 but still not the same as lossless. And the cost of a CD is not bad either. I can find many that I like for $10 or less. If a $10 CD has 10 tracks it is a break even with iTunes. Why cant they offer the track in your choice of bit rate and format. Wasn't there an on-line music service that did just that?

 

[hihater]

Frankly I don't really care about DRM.

 

[rhett7660]

This is great news if it does indeed happen. Oh man this will put a dent in my spending. I buy a lot of cd's but if I can have just a few songs from a cd that I want at a rate that I would have ripped them at. That is all fine and dandy with me.... Bring it on!

 

[gnasher729]

DRM free music is the only way forward.
The next thing Apple needs to do is to drop AAC (which isn't compatible with everything) and switch to MP3 (which is compatible with everything).

The only reason why not everybody is using AAC is because for many years, everyone who wanted any business relationship with Microsoft didn't dare putting AAC on their music players. You don't want to upset Microsoft if you try to sell music players that connect to Windows computers.

This did of course change once Microsoft ****** all the companies that had signed up to its infamous "PlayForSure" program by creating a music store incompatible with PlayForSure, created a music player incompatible with PlayForSure, and made that music player compatbile with AAC!

 

[rockosmodurnlif]

This thread hasn't devolved into a piracy fight yet? I'm surprised. Though I see the compression debate is underway.

Hmm, let me wade into that. aac is $.99 even the itunes plus aac is $.99. loseless would be considerable more space and bandwith. with music videos and tv shows going for $1.99 and the hd versions going for 2.99, the losseless might be $1.49. Or a 50% increase. With albums going for $9.99, a 50% increase would be $14.98. You can probably find CDs at Best Buy or Target or Wal-Mart for that price or less. But yes I understand, it would involve moving away from the computer and going someplace to physically purchase so yes, iTunes should start selling lossless and reap the profits from the lazy.

 

[thulsmans]

on the topic of piracy

when some people handbrake rented movies or download them its because they think the movie is 3/5. they would never buy it for 20$. if they love the movie people go buy it. i've seen this many times. So is the company that distributes the movie isn't actually losing money ? you were never going to buy it so is that actually a bad thing? or am i missing something in this regard?

 

[slimpaul]

Why can't they just give us higher quality music from all labels. You don't need drm-free files anyway.

 

[Squirrellybird]

i can confirm this rumor is true

They will be going to iTunes plus and offering the higher quality files... HOWEVER... they will be in AIFF format so devices not made by apple will have trouble with them. The AIFF format will be exclusive to iTunes though, you can get MP3s from other digital online stores. The digital album art files will also be converted to look more like a standard CD booklet and not the large single page style they are currently.

 

[Blue Velvet]

They will be going to iTunes plus and offering the higher quality files... HOWEVER... they will be in AIFF format so devices not made by apple will have trouble with them.

So why did they introduce Apple Lossless which is cross-platform and contains DRM if used? You'll hopefully forgive me if I have some trouble believing your post.

 

[JonHimself]

This thread hasn't devolved into a piracy fight yet? I'm surprised. Though I see the compression debate is underway.

Hmm, let me wade into that. aac is $.99 even the itunes plus aac is $.99. loseless would be considerable more space and bandwith. with music videos and tv shows going for $1.99 and the hd versions going for 2.99, the losseless might be $1.49. Or a 50% increase. With albums going for $9.99, a 50% increase would be $14.98. You can probably find CDs at Best Buy or Target or Wal-Mart for that price or less. But yes I understand, it would involve moving away from the computer and going someplace to physically purchase so yes, iTunes should start selling lossless and reap the profits from the lazy.

I don't think it's necessarily a discussion about laziness, though I'm sure that comment will get a reaction. For me (I might add, I'm not lazy) I only buy CDs to get a lossless copy of the music. I rip it as lossless (then re-encode for my iPod). What do I use the physical disc for? Nothing. Am I lazy because I would prefer to buy a lossless copy in digital format rather then skipping the disc purchase? Doubt it... (and no, this doesn't need to turn into a conversation about whether or not anyone can actually tell the difference between lossless, 256, 192, etc etc).

 

[kjs862]

sounds like great news

 

[fr33 loader]

Seriously, 19 people rated this rumor negative? I have no idea what's running in their brains. I wait for the day when iTunes is completely DRM free with higher bitrate.

 

[gnasher729]

Hmm, let me wade into that. aac is $.99 even the itunes plus aac is $.99. loseless would be considerable more space and bandwith. with music videos and tv shows going for $1.99 and the hd versions going for 2.99, the losseless might be $1.49. Or a 50% increase. With albums going for $9.99, a 50% increase would be $14.98. You can probably find CDs at Best Buy or Target or Wal-Mart for that price or less. But yes I understand, it would involve moving away from the computer and going someplace to physically purchase so yes, iTunes should start selling lossless and reap the profits from the lazy.

Apple Lossless is about 20-25 MByte per song instead of 4 MByte for 128KBit/second or 8 MByte for 256KBit/second. Apple lets you download 1,000 MB movies for rental for about $2.99 (doesn't matter that it is rented because we are looking at the cost of downloading). That 1000 MB is about the difference between 50 songs in Apple Lossless vs. the same 50 songs at 128KBit/second. So if one dollar of the $2.99 is for the cost of the actual download, then Apple could cover the download cost of songs in Apple Lossless by adding about two cents per song. The download cost of a full uncompressed CD album (700 MB) would be about 70 cents; with Apple Lossless compression maybe 40 cents.

 

[gnasher729]

Absolutly. I'm going to continue to rip from CD. 256 AAC is good, better then 256 MP3 but still not the same as lossless. And the cost of a CD is not bad either. I can find many that I like for $10 or less. If a $10 CD has 10 tracks it is a break even with iTunes. Why cant they offer the track in your choice of bit rate and format. Wasn't there an on-line music service that did just that?

There was. And that on-line service offered exceptionally good prices by neglecting little details like paying any money to the artists or record companies.

 

[TomMcIn]

Great for Canadians

Unlike Amazon, iTunes is available in Canada. Hopefully, we are on the way to getting adequate service.

Amazon has a good site, just conks out when it figures you are not from the US. To bad they have not decided to provide Canadian support.